The company that operates Snapchat asked a federal judge this week to put on hold — or reject — a lawsuit filed by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier alleging violations of a 2024 state law aimed at keeping children off some social-media platforms.
Attorneys for Snap Inc. argued in a 49-page filing Wednesday that Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker should issue a stay of Uthmeier’s lawsuit while a case filed last year by the tech-industry groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association plays out. The industry groups, which allege the law (HB 3) violates First Amendment rights, are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the measure.
“Snap — through its membership in NetChoice — and the attorney general have fully briefed and submitted their arguments on the motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin HB 3 under the First Amendment, and a decision granting that motion would dramatically affect the disputes in the present case,” Snap’s attorneys wrote. “Allowing the present case to proceed before that decision would be duplicative, wasteful, and unfair.”
But if Walker turns down the request for a stay, Snap argued he should dismiss Uthmeier’s lawsuit. The law seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on platforms that meet certain criteria — though it would allow parents to give consent for 14- and 15-year-olds to have accounts. Children under 14 could not open accounts.
“The statute categorically bars individuals under age 14 from creating accounts on the websites it covers and requires parental consent for 14- and 15-year-olds, infringing on protected speech of minors,” wrote Snap’s attorneys, who include former state Solicitor General Christopher Kise. “As numerous courts have concluded, requiring minors to obtain parental consent before accessing ‘social media’ abridges First Amendment rights.”
Uthmeier filed the lawsuit April 21 in state court in Santa Rosa County, with the case moved last week to federal court. The law was one of the highest-profile issues of the 2024 legislative session, with supporters saying it targets addictive features of social-media platforms — a key argument in Uthmeier’s lawsuit against Snap.
“Despite being subject to HB 3, Snap contracts with and provides accounts to Florida users who it knows are younger than 14,” the lawsuit said. “It also fails to seek parental consent before contracting with and providing accounts to Florida users who it knows are 14 or 15 years old. Snap is openly and knowingly violating HB 3, and each violation constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice under FDUTPA (a state law known as the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act).”
The law did not name platforms that would be affected but included a definition of such platforms, with criteria related to such things as algorithms, addictive features and allowing users to view the content or activities of other users.
Uthmeier’s lawsuit alleged that Snapchat meets criteria, such as having addictive features, that make it subject to the age restrictions. For example, the lawsuit said Snapchat uses “push notifications” that appear on users’ phone screens when they are not using the platform.
“Push notifications exploit users’ natural tendency to seek and attend to environmental feedback, serving as distractors that monopolize attention,” the lawsuit said. “Young users are especially sensitive to these triggers and less able to control their response and resist reopening the app. Snapchat sends push notifications to users, regardless of age, frequently and at all hours of the day and night.”
But in the filing Wednesday, Snap’s attorneys raised a series of arguments, including that the law violates the First Amendment and the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause and is preempted by a federal law known as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act.
In addition to arguing that the law infringes on speech rights of minors, Snap’s attorneys contended that its age-verification requirements violate the rights of adults.
“The statute also burdens the rights of adults to access covered services,” the filing said. “Because it requires age-verification, it effectively requires everyone, including adults, to verify their ages before accessing those services — or, more precisely, to surrender sensitive personal information prior to accessing protected speech. As courts have repeatedly reaffirmed, requiring adults to verify their age before accessing speech significantly burdens First Amendment rights.”
In the lawsuit filed last year by the industry groups, Walker on March 13 turned down an initial request for a preliminary injunction, saying the groups had not shown they had legal standing to challenge the law. But the groups on March 28 filed a revised lawsuit and a renewed motion for a preliminary injunction.
That motion remained pending as of Friday morning.
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
